The paper addresses a significant research gap: the impact of technology, specifically AI, on human-animal relations. While the ethical implications of technology on human-human and human-technology relations are widely discussed, the effect on human-animal interactions remains underexplored. The authors argue for a non-anthropocentric perspective, acknowledging the moral significance of these relations. The study focuses on AI due to its transformative potential and prevalence, examining AI's influence through two key processes: automation and replacement. Automation, largely within animal agriculture, is analyzed as it often leads to increased alienation between humans and animals. Replacement, where AI-driven entities substitute biological animals (e.g., RoboDolphins, robotic companion animals), is also explored for its ethical implications. The authors aim to contribute to the ethical debate surrounding AI development and use by considering both individual and societal levels of human-animal interactions. The paper acknowledges that the examples provided are not exhaustive but represent some of the most pertinent applications of AI in animal-related industries.

The authors review various ethical perspectives on the moral significance of human-animal relations. They discuss three main approaches: (1) a Wittgensteinian perspective emphasizing the moral significance of relations themselves, regardless of animal capacities; (2) a relational approach to moral status, arguing against human authority in conferring moral status; and (3) a sentientist approach prioritizing sentient animals, particularly those with established relationships with humans. All three approaches highlight the importance of human-animal relations, making their alteration by AI technologies a morally significant concern.

The paper employs a descriptive and normative approach. It descriptively examines how AI impacts human-animal relations through automation and replacement processes, providing real-world examples. Normatively, it enriches the debate with a non-anthropocentric perspective, acknowledging the moral significance of these relations. The authors focus on two key processes: **Automation Processes:** The paper explores AI's role in precision livestock farming (PLF), including robotic milking, herd management, disease detection, and automated feeding. They highlight how these technologies, while often presented as animal welfare improvements, can actually exacerbate alienation by removing human interaction and creating a greater distance between humans and farmed animals. This alienation is further amplified through language, where terms used to describe animals can perpetuate instrumental views. **Replacement Processes:** The paper analyzes the replacement of biological animals with AI-driven counterparts. Examples include RoboDolphins (replacing marine mammals in entertainment), robotic companion animals (substituting pets for therapeutic or companionship purposes), and industrial robots like Spot (replacing human labor in hazardous environments). The ethical complexities of these replacements are explored, considering issues of reciprocity and the potential for perpetuating instrumental views of animals. The authors also touch on cases where AI replaces specific relational aspects, for instance, using drones to walk dogs. The paper also examines the ethical implications of this shift and the potential risk of treating companion animals merely as means to an end. The analysis considers both individual and societal levels, evaluating the potential benefits and harms of AI's influence on human-animal relations. The paper explicitly avoids defining a “morally significant human-animal relation” because of the inherent diversity of such relations, preferring instead to evaluate the impacts of AI on specific examples.

The paper's key findings revolve around the dual impact of AI on human-animal relations: **Automation's Negative Impact:** AI-driven automation in animal agriculture, while often promoted for welfare improvements, increases alienation between humans and animals. Reduced human interaction leads to a decline in care-based relationships and a greater distance between consumers and the source of their food. The use of AI in these contexts risks making it harder to enact societal changes towards more respectful agricultural practices. There is further risk that the removal of human expertise could negatively impact animal welfare, especially given the potential for AI to miss subtle indicators of discomfort. **Replacement's Complexities:** The replacement of biological animals with AI-driven versions leads to complex ethical considerations. While replacing animals in zoos could be beneficial in terms of animal welfare, ethical concerns emerge regarding the instrumentalization of animals and the potential for perpetuating a morally problematic perspective on animals. The replacement of companion animals brings up other concerns: while it might prevent animal abuse, it also risks perpetuating an instrumental view of animals, and, depending on how humans respond to these technological substitutes, could lead to a decline in care-based relationships between humans and animals. In contrast to zoo animals, the issue of replacement of companion animals could also lead to a loss of genuinely meaningful, reciprocal relationships. The paper does not offer definitive conclusions on whether replacement processes are positive or negative, but instead highlights this ethical complexity. **The Role of Alienation:** A central theme is the pervasiveness of alienation in human-animal relations. This alienation is exacerbated by technology (e.g., automation removing human interaction) and language (e.g., dehumanizing terminology). However, the authors suggest that this alienation isn't inherent to technology; alternative technological advancements could potentially foster more respectful relationships.

The paper's findings address the research question by demonstrating how AI, through automation and replacement, significantly impacts human-animal relations. The discussion emphasizes the moral significance of these impacts, highlighting the ethical challenges presented by automation-induced alienation and the nuanced ethical considerations of replacement. The authors argue that while AI might offer benefits (e.g., reducing animal suffering in some cases), the risk of increased alienation and instrumentalization of animals must be carefully considered. The discussion points to the crucial need for interdisciplinary research, combining technical development with the humanities, to create AI systems that enhance rather than undermine ethical human-animal relations. The paper notes the growing trend of questioning anthropocentrism and advocates for practical changes to avoid or minimize harm to animals.

The paper concludes that AI's impact on human-animal relations is complex, with both potential benefits and harms. Automation processes generally worsen relations, causing greater alienation, while replacement processes may be beneficial depending on the context and implementation. The authors emphasize the importance of a careful, ethical approach to the design and implementation of AI in animal-related contexts and call for interdisciplinary collaboration to ensure that AI technologies foster positive human-animal relationships. Future research should focus on exploring how AI can be used to create more respectful and less instrumental relationships between humans and animals.

The paper acknowledges that its examples are not exhaustive and that a more comprehensive analysis would require a broader examination of AI's applications in various human-animal contexts. Further, the paper mainly focuses on the ethical implications from the human perspective. A more complete analysis would benefit from incorporating the animal perspective to a greater extent. The paper primarily focuses on specific applications of AI without explicitly addressing all facets of the socio-technical systems that shape these applications. Further research is needed to explore the complexities of specific contexts and the dynamic nature of human-animal relations.